Hey there.
As the title says, don’t you feel frustrated whenever a new video comes along and it’s just a blurry pixel doing mundane things?
15 years ago I saw something extraordinary, something that I tear up by just remembering. I won’t go into details because why would I? I’m a stranger on the internet and my experience has no weight cept for me. But I know what I saw, and I truly wonder why nobody ever caught something like that with a camera.
Video after video after images come out and all that I’m left saying to myself is “that’s not it”.
I’m just frustrated that the hallucination hypothesis is the best explanation for my sighting at this point.
how do you cope with that?
“My “made-up stat” was to point out that it’s absurd to try to make one”
Trust me, you didn’t need to come up with an example to prove the absurdity of your argument.
your argument is: if you’re standing on a beach, and you find lichen growing out of the microcosm of one grain of sand, your assumption is that that grain of sand is the only life on the beach, before taking the time to even look at any other grain of sand on the beach.
That’s about as goofy as it gets.
You’re a zealot.
You’d burn Galileo at the stake for demonstrating his “magic space glass” if you had the chance.
“I have yet to see such evidence…”
yet you’re extrapolating off of your ignorance.
again, if you haven’t even looked at any of the other grains of sand, your believies are just that.
I’m convinced based on scientific evidence, you believe in as you say, your “circular logic”:
by not looking at any evidence, by covering your eyes with your own hands, you’ve convinced yourself that no evidence of extraterrestrial life exists.
you are incorrect.
Yeah ok, if your level of argumentation is “you’re like an anti-vaxxer” (which is funny considering they are people believing that the consensus is wrong and that they know better than science, seems ironic to see it from your side), then there’s no point in trying to reply to you.
You kept on trying to alter my argument to try to ridicule it, you’re obviously not debating in good faith so there’s no point.
And also, I looked at what the “evidence” is and there’s nothing but clues saying “it’s possible”. If you think that it is enough to conclude to the existence of something, then you have no clue what scientific reasoning is.
Enjoy considering your beliefs as a scientific truth, and consider calming down on the fallacies if you want to be taken seriously.
If you’re going to make things up rather than look at any evidence, there’s definitely no point in continuing your rant.
Good faith?
you have admitted that you are unaware of existing evidence for UFOs that is freely available, but you are extrapolating from your own ignorance that there can be no evidence.
I can only respond to the level of your lack of understanding, that may be why this well seems to have run dry for you.
you’ll probably learn about the significance of evidence one day, but too late, and apologize to Galileo on your death bed.
I have admitted no such thing, I said that I couldn’t find any evidence strong enough to serve as a rational proof.
And did you really casually throw in a Galileo gambit right now? You went from looking like an angry irrational person to a full-on conspiracy theorist in such a few words.
you should definitely try to explain how Galileo, who Is widely recognized as having provided rational scientific evidence for heliocentrism despite people like you calling him a witch because you don’t believe in evidence, was a “conspiracy theorist”.
Once again not what I said.
Here, have a good read: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit
always the people that refuse to read urging others to read for them.
you are aware that just because you learned some buzzwords recently, applying them incorrectly does not suddenly make them applicable?
You’re just incorrectly using buzzword after buzzword without context.
have you tried “gaslighting” yet?
That’s probably another reason you don’t need to look at any evidence related to the topic you are ignorant about.
because I’m “gsslighting” you.
How is it incorrect? You quote Galileo as a way to support the idea that despite no consensus on the existence of alien life, you are convinced that you know better. Are you really so dishonest that you’ll now argue that you mentioned him out of nowhere, and not to compare your situation to his?
And all you manage to do is pile some random bullshit to try to discredit me? I don’t even know how you managed to insert gaslighting into this, but it does cast even more shadows on your intentions.
“How is it incorrect?”
Let us count the ways.
"You quote Galileo "
incorrect, I did not quote Galileo.
“as a way to support the idea that despite no consensus on the existence of alien life…”
incorrect. I am not supporting this.
“you are convinced that you know better.”
incorrect again, I have not stated that I know better, I have stated that you are ignorant of the scientific evidence, as you have admitted.
“Are you really so dishonest that you’ll now argue that you mentioned him out of nowhere, and not to compare your situation to his?”
this is going to apparently wreck your worldview, but telling the truth is the opposite of being dishonest.
incorrect a fourth time and a fifth, as I had no intention of comparing my situation to his, but rather pointing out your tendency to ignore evidence that disproves your believies, just as the masses ignored scientific evidence while Galileo presented them with it
as I’ve said from the beginning, you are one of the blind masses.
dang, you are behind.
“And all you manage to do is pile some random bullshit to try to discredit me”
by some random bullshit, do you mean the exact things that you said?
you don’t believe in evidence, you prefer believies.
That’s your problem.
it doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist, that the telemetry doesn’t exist or that radiological data doesn’t exist or that radar and credible witnesses don’t exist.
it just means that your beliefs are stronger than your intellect.
“I don’t even know how you managed to insert gaslighting into this”
unsurprising.
you keep crying wolf pretending that I am using logical fallacies even though you have incorrectly used each logical fallacy so far, including your accusation of me using the “Galileo Gambit”, which apparently after I pointed it out is why you are pretending that you we’re making a simple comparison to Galileo rather than mistakenly regurgitating the logical fallacy correlated with his name.
did you even know Galileo was a scientist before you used your little buzzword incorrectly?
I don’t really care, that was retortical.
so I don’t know those are examples of you being incorrect what seven, eight times?
that, as a whole, is how you are incorrect, to answer your plaintive cry.